Parallel invoices cannot sustain a fresh demand where the same goods were already seized, assessed, and duty paid.

A demand based on parallel invoices could not be sustained where the goods were shown to be the same goods earlier intercepted, seized, adjudicated upon, and subjected to duty payment. The appellate view accepted that Revenue could not rely selectively on a proprietor's statement while ignoring the clarification that the goods covered by the later invoices were already dealt with in the prior proceeding. On that basis, a fresh demand on the same goods would amount to double adjudication, so the demand was held unsustainable to the extent it covered those goods.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand raised on the basis of parallel invoices could be sustained when the goods were found to be the same goods earlier seized, adjudicated upon, and subjected to duty payment.

Analysis: The respondent's goods had already been intercepted and seized in an earlier proceeding, duty had been paid in respect of those goods, and the later notice was founded on the allegation that the same goods were cleared under parallel invoices. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted that the Revenue could not rely selectively on the proprietor's statement to sustain a fresh demand while ignoring the clarification that the goods covered by the parallel invoices were the very same goods earlier seized. That view was found to be free from infirmity, since a second demand on the same goods would amount to double adjudication.

Conclusion: The demand based on the parallel invoices was not sustainable to the extent it related to goods already seized and assessed, and the Revenue's challenge was rejected.

---